Absolutely spot on. As I metioned in the comments to yesterday's post, the utter failure of this regime to protect our borders and defend the general welfare of the people lets otherwise reasonable people take these wild-assed conspiracy stories seriously.

Exactly, well said! If people felt safe today, these rumors would have died off fast. Unfortunately, many of us that have lived in the West know that these drug cartels are dangerous. I doubt their intent is to capture the US, but they certainly make themselves at home - whether they are a Mexican or US citizen.

They have worn out their welcome!

Its not about the conspiracy theory for me, as a south Texan who lives a couple of hours north of this area and formerly lived in southern California. What is is certainly about is Azatlan, the intent of many thousands of Mexican nationals and Mexican illegals in the US and former Mexicans now nationalized as US citizens who fully intend to take back the Southwestern United States to be part of Mexico because they believe it is part of Mexico that was illegally taken them. They have no legitimate political leadership amongst this belief so they will follow the gang leadership and the huge money influence of the drug cartels. And the United States has a president and a congressional majority who think they can play this thing for VOTES when they should be providing the entire country with SECURITY. REMEMBER THE ALAMO. If there is a problem with drug cartels from Mexico invading Texas, the citizens militia here will engage the enemy and defend Texas and the US by whatever means are necessary.

I have to disagree with you, CY. For all of its failings, the federal government has not created the conditions for the Laredo hoax to be possible. That's why this, and similar stories, are hoaxes. There has been no example of anything like this.

That being said, we can close down the border as tight as we like, but we are dealing with heavily-armed criminals with access to advanced technology. If they want to get across the border, they will. This is a border nearly 2000 miles long.

Secondly, it is hardly in the interests of Los Zetas or any of the other cartels to get the US government involved in their own power struggle with the Mexican government. It jeopardizes the position of having the upper hand they currently enjoy. Other than when it is in their interests to kidnap or murder a few individuals, as has been previously noted on the first Laredo post, they keep their bullets on the other side of the river.

Thirdly, things are no different under Obama, Napolitano and Holder than they were under Bush, Chertoff, and Mukasey.

In what way have they not protected our national sovereignty? By not having a hermetically sealed border that can keep out even the most powerful and determined criminals? By not stopped or at least throwing out every illegal immigrant? (If it is either or both of these criteria, then every adminstration since 1848 is equally guilty. Perhaps you ackowledge this by referring to generations of Republicans and Democrats.) How has the government abandoned you and set you adrift?

What have been their nefarious reasons to desire an open border? I desire an open border for libertarian/free market and theological reasons, but realise that right now it isn't practical for a number of other reasons. Setting aside the theological bit, I'm guessing you don't find libertarian or free market ideas nefarious, so there must be something else.

This is not unlike the unnamed sources in the Laredo hoax. There are a lot of generalities thrown around without any substance or facts that can be nailed down.

There is talk that the federal judge will eventually leave the Arizona law mostly intact but strike down the state penalty provisions.
Really, this all then comes down to Arizona arresting the illegals and then keeping them until they can be transferred to federal jurisdiction.

If the feds refuse to take jurisdiction, the good folks of Arizona could just give them a bus ticket to DC.

The People's Republic of San Francisco used this idea to clean their streets of the homeless back in the 80’s, when they sent them to Antelope Oregon to join up with the famous Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.

And I disagree with you, Sol. You won't find many conservative bloggers who believe that Bush's approach to immigration law enforcement was something we need to "return to." What most conservatives believe is that we need to repeal the Hart-Celler Act (PL 89-236), which forms the basis of our current immigration policy, and enact legislation that clarifies the intent of the 14th Amendment. We can't have de facto open borders that pay no attention to who we're allowing to nationalize and we can't have pregnant people stealing across the border to birth anchor babies.

I agree with Governor Christie that we need a "path to citizenship" for those who are here and have a legitimate contribution to make towards our economic growth. But we cannot simply throw the doors open and let Latin America raid our treasury to seek welfare. We are the breadbasket of the world, but we should insist on legitimate payment for our bread.

Secondly, it is hardly in the interests of Los Zetas or any of the other cartels to get the US government involved in their own power struggle with the Mexican government.

This is laughable, for the simple reason that the US government has refused to get involved. They've abdicated. Hell, they're on the same side, if you want to use AZ's new law as a stake in the ground, and I will for the purposes of this comment.

Los Zetas are rational, and they see a perfectly clear field before them.

Dave, I did not say that Bush's approach was something to which we need to return. If by saying you want a repeal of Hart-Cellar you mean that you want to do away with the quota concept altogether, I agree, though this concept has formed the basis of immigration policy since the early 20th century. If by clarifying the 14th Amendment you mean that you want to shift the legal basis of citizenship from jus soli to jus sanguinis as a way to stop more anchor babies, then fine, but I don't think this is an inherently conservative move, even if it is popular with those who call themselves conservatives at this moment in time.

"Path to citizenship" is a much more politically correct term for conservatives than "amnesty". The former makes room for throwing all sorts of obstacles and penalties in the way, whereas the latter is all abour forgiveness, which is an inherently liberal idea to be avoided at all costs.

I'm glad you agree with me that we cannot throw the door open to Latin America to raid the treasury in the form of welfare benefits. Like I said, it is not practical for a number of reasons that that certainly would be one.

BTW, I often find that many conservative bloggers disagree with me, but I don't use that as the litmus test for whether my views and values are truly conservative. I was conservative decades before there was a blogosphere and no doubt will be long after it has gone.

Scott, I don't see how the US government's refusal to get involved makes it laughable that it is not in Los Zetas' interests to get them involved. If Los Zetas started generating the sort of violence on this side of the border than they have on the other side, the government would be getting involved. It is laughable to suggest otherwise. If they started taking over ranches at gunpoint and attempting to control vast swathes of my home state of Texas, and murder any and all who oppose them, they would feel the full force of the US military.

Just because the government has not sent every available soldier and National Guardsman to stand shoulder-to-shoulder along the border with rifles pointed south to stop every coyote, mule, pregnant woman, and economic migrant from stepping into the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, they are not on the same side as Los Zetas.

Likewise it is not the responsibility of the United States to violate the sovereignty of Mexico and stop the drug wars in Nuevo Laredo, Acuna, Juarez, or anywhere else, except at the request of the lawful and recognized government of Mexico and then if in the best interests of the United States.

@Sol: I couldn't agree with you more. I don't know if you have experience on the border, but you clearly have an understanding of these issues that is otherwise lacking in the general population.

If Los Zetas started generating the sort of violence on this side of the border than they have on the other side, the government would be getting involved.

I really would like to know how you can predict that, and why you you're so certain it's so.

And what level of violence, per you, will trigger a fed response?

Further, what has been done to date that would make a Zeta intent on operating in Texas think he's in any danger at all? The feds don't have to be on the same side of the Zetas or any other bad actor, they just don't have to actively oppose them, and to date, they have not.

That's why I deem it laughable. Because I laugh to think that the feds would bother themselves much. It's simply not a priority.

Thank you, TAD. I'm from South Texas and have friends and relatives on the border.

Scott, I don't know the trigger level for a federal response beyond the normal federal law enforcement response to crimes within federal jurisdiction. I simply said that if the level of violence on this side of the border was of the same sort as that on the other side, there would be a dedicated federal response to it. Since the violence on this side in nothing like the violence on the other, what is it exactly that you wants the feds to do that they are not doing and in you view are unwilling or can't be bothered to do? What do you want them to do to actively oppose the Zetas? Do you believe there are not enough DEA agents? Or do you believe that you should be privy to all their operational details? Which federal agencies should be involved that are not? What form would this involvement take?

As much money as these cartels have I would think it a simple matter for them to just buy a large chunk of ground on the Texas side of the border Then just send their mules over at that point for a rest before going on.
This could easily be mis-construded by someone a an "invasion/takeover.

I desire an open border for libertarian/free market and theological reasons

So basically you don't know jack about either religion OR libertarianism.

For what it's worth, I have a close friend who spoke with a) a relative in Laredo PD; b) numerous acquaintances all throughout Laredo's law enforcement community; and c) a local news reporter, and they all confirmed that nothing happened. (Yes, I realize I don't have this information first-hand, but it's the best I can do.)

According to my friend, the only thing that did happen was a couple of ranchers reported suspicious activity late last week (human smuggling, no way to know whether it was Zetas), and the ranchers *may* have received threats. That's it.

With that said, according to my friend, law enforcement put a lot of resources and manpower (including 1/2 of LPD) in the area over what turned out to be a hoax. Some here are pretty peeved off about that.

Anyway, the story is over.